Common Usage in Strategy and Tactics

To give a more complete answer to Mr. Bąkowski, I should like to address the apparent inconsistency of my “apology,” where I admit the use of the word “Russia” in place of the word “Soviet,” and end by admitting that this usage is integral to the enemy’s semantic liquidation of anti-communism. Mr. Bąkowski supposes that I have wrongly conceded the enemy’s terminology. He suggests that we must resist this terminology with every weapon at our disposal. In explaining my position, it is best to use a military analogy. The communists turned our flank when they won the semantic battles of 1989-1991. We were pushed from familiar rhetorical ground into a swamp. This was unavoidable, and there was nothing we could do about it. The enemy shifted the ground from beneath our feet. We could not shift it back, because common usage changed, and common usage dictates all discourse. Currently we are undergoing a process in which concepts are realigning with words so that people are attaching old understandings to new labels. When people say “Russian Federation,” they more and more realize it is a dictatorship where dissidents are murdered, where freedom of the press has been suspended, and military preparations are ongoing; and the word “Russia” is shorthand for “Russian Federation.” In common parlance, Russia has moved backward, ever close to the USSR. If the communists are hiding behind “Russia,” their cover is being blown. The deception is losing momentum. It is ebbing away, little by little. When the strategy is fully exhausted, they will be compelled to engage in open warfare. They cannot renew their deception under another set of labels. This is because the deception was carefully prepared decades in advance, and this preparation cannot be replicated. The strategy therefore has a shelf-life. In the last analysis it must be superseded, as Golitsyn said, by the strategy of “one clenched fist.”

The communist achievement of 1989-91 was remarkable on more than one level. Here was a grand maneuver with far-reaching social, economic and political effects. Do you remember the mid-1990s? Economic optimism was on the march. The use of words like “communist” and “Soviet” lost all currency. The events of 1989-91 changed nearly everyone’s thinking. Those of us who grasped what was happening fell silent for a time. It was futile to discuss the threat of communism, or the long range Soviet policy, because nobody was willing to entertain the idea that the changes in Russia were deceptive. Again and again, Golitsyn’s predictions came true. His analytical approach was confirmed. To say so, however, was entirely useless. I remember talking to presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan in 1992 about Andrei Navrozov’s essay, “The Coming Order,” and how Arnold Beichman had attacked Navrozov in the pages of Chronicles magazine. Navrozov was the only writer of that time courageous enough to risk his reputation writing about Moscow’s New Economic Policy (NEP) in the context of Lenin’s NEP. I knew Chronicles was Buchanan’s favorite magazine, and he knew about Navrozov. When I told Buchanan that Navrozov was onto something, he looked at me with skepticism. He said that Beichman did a good job putting Navrozov in his place. Buchanan had already made up his mind, caught up in the illusion of the moment, like nearly everyone. There was no way to communicate Golitsyn’s message or Navrozov’s subtlety. Buchanan even expressed the view that the Pope had brought about the fall of communism. This shows the extent to which intelligent opinion-makers fell into their own idiosyncratic interpretations; and there was no arguing with him. He had the weight of a deluded majority, and a deluded establishment, on his side.

The success of the Soviet long range policy was absolute, and it took many years for people to realize a similarity, once more, between the policies of the Kremlin with those of the former Soviet Union. By 1997 there was evidence of continued “Russian” cheating or fudging on conventional, biological and nuclear arms agreements. The elevation of KGB officer Putin to the Russian presidency further facilitated a comparison of Russian and Soviet policies. In addition, there were human rights abuses in Russia. Liberal figures in the media and politics were being assassinated. At this time the intelligence analyst Bill Lee published his book on the ABM treaty charade, where he wrote about Russia’s hidden strategic reserves. Later, the works of Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya broke through, and the physical elimination of these authors made an opening for further discussion. At the same time, organized resistance to the Kremlin appeared in Georgia and Poland and Ukraine. Here is where our interpretations become problematic.

Mr. Bąkowski objects to my observations, I suspect, because he credits himself with knowing where the false opposition to communism ends and the genuine opposition begins. He thinks I am mistaken about positive developments in Poland, Georgia and Ukraine. Perhaps he is right, and I need to be educated on these subjects. If he is knowledgeable, by all means, let him share what he knows. It is easy to be confused when so many deceptive personalities are at work (e.g., Vaclav Klaus in the Czech Republic, or Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine, Lech Wałęsa in Poland, etc.). Quite naturally, my attitude toward all politicians is distrustful; all the more when they are in former Soviet bloc countries. But when facts suggest that a politician is authentic in his patriotism, I am cautiously positive; and always willing to revise my judgments. In respect of this, the events of 2008 indicate that Victor Yushchenko in Ukraine and Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia appear to be authentic anti-communists. In the case of Poland’s President Kaczyński, I am told that he is working to purge the communists from Polish national life. There are indications that Kaczyński’s associates have won a few minor victories. As the lead “liquidator” of the Polish Military Information Services, Antoni Macierewicz was involved in the SKW’s publication of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s New Lies for Old. This suggests that something vital has grown up in Poland, and I’d like to congratulate these achievements; but Mr. Bąkowski seems dismissive of Macierewicz and Kaczyński. Perhaps he would care to explain.

It is important to realize that the deception initiated by Moscow in the late 1980s cannot be sustained indefinitely. Structures need to be renewed, rebuilt and adapted. In certain respects, the Soviet strategy suffered setbacks. After unification, Germany did not leave NATO to ally with Russia. American troops did not pull out of Europe. The communists are not supermen, and the day is coming when the rhetorical and linguistic advantages will belong to us. The communists achieve their results through persistence, organization, and time-tested methods. Since it is possible to see the overall pattern of what they are doing around the world, we can intelligently analyze and discuss their moves today. Tomorrow, this same discourse may become a guidebook for political action.

I feel obligated to one further clarification, since my last missive made such a poor impression. What I offered in response to Mr. Bąkowski was not a mock apology, as apology has two meanings: (1) a written or spoken statement expressing remorse; (2) a formal defense or justification. Please note, my “apology” was of the second type.

It is, as well, unfortunate if Mr. Bąkowski thinks I am patronizing him. I beg to differ, since my object is to bring us together in a common cause. We should not manufacture divisions on the basis of obscure or idiosyncratic usage, or from a misplaced methodological individualism. People are not philosophical machines, readily programmed to spit back “correct” or “incorrect” political grammar. We must fight on with the words that common usage gives us. We have no choice, if we are to be understood. And I think, despite the criticism leveled against me, that my message is far from unclear.

Bąkowski is right to say that Truth is unattainable to human perception. My concern is not with Truth, however, but with small truths that are discoverable to individuals whose receptivity or lack thereof is conditioned by national character or individual aptitude; namely, the truth that the Russian Federation (formerly the Soviet Union) is a dangerous power which uses deception, subversion and agents of influence to deprive us of the advantages granted by liberty. In this respect, almost everything Anatoliy Golitsyn warned us about has come to pass.

In reply to Mr. Bąkowski’s misapplication of my point: To say that there is “no final political form” does not mean that the future can “develop in a bewildering number of ways.” I am afraid that the future is developing in one direction: toward an unprecedented calamity in which hundreds of millions will die. For what else could the success of the Soviet long range policy mean? When I write these words, therefore, the aim is not pedantry or a battle of wits. We are fighting for our lives, and we are running out of time.

Once again, it bears repetition: Almost everything Golitsyn warned us about has come to pass. The West has swallowed the Russian lies, and the United States is disarming. The infiltration of the West has advanced to a point of “no return,” and those who wish to survive and struggle for a way out must work together as allies in the largest possible sense. In my view, it is quite beneath us to quibble over terms.

Though he agrees with my sense of things to come, Mr. Bąkowski seems to chastise me for attempting what no mortal should attempt. But we do not need a crystal ball to see what is coming. Golitsyn’s methodology allowed him to predict the future with stunning accuracy. Today’s economic crisis, and the mobilization of the bloc’s economic weapons, further demonstrates the former KGB officer’s prescience. This is hardly strange. There is much about the future that we may reasonably guess.

I know when the sun is going to rise in the morning, and I know with a fair degree of confidence what the weather will be like, and what I will be doing. In fact, I know what time I am coming home from work tomorrow. And I also know, from the fixed determination of President Obama to eliminate U.S. nuclear weapons, and from studying Golitsyn’s methodology, that my country is about to lose to the communist bloc. I know that communists are criminals, that mass killing is what they do, that they will not give us heaven on earth. They deceive in order to destroy. Nothing could be more obvious.

Of course, Mr. Bąkowski alleges that my terminology is imprecise and my starting point contradicts my conclusion. But this says more about the peculiar demands of Bąkowski’s rationalism, and nothing about the precision of my terminology. What he asserts, at bottom, is that Russia as a nation is somehow unrelated to secret police methods or communist power. This is like asserting that Germany was unrelated to Hitlerism. Many of the methods of the KGB and the Bolshevik regime go far back in Russian history. Russian political culture has become fused with communism.

Perhaps Bąkowski thinks that referring to “Russia” as our enemy is counter-productive because the Russian people are natural allies to the cause of freedom. Well, don’t hold your breath, Mr. Bąkowski. We may celebrate the courage of Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko without fooling ourselves that the evil is not, in part, a Russian evil. The legacy of Russian imperialism is thoroughly Russian, and we should not pretend otherwise. Communism, as most ideologies, is an excuse for a certain kind of nature to take its course. I suppose that Mr. Bąkowski would scold me for referring to Germany instead of Hitlerism in 1944. We must, after all, cultivate the good will of the German people. But I would ask him: Did Sophie Scholl and her compatriots refuse to oppose Hitler because the entire world cursed Germany for being his instrument? Let the Russians feel as ashamed of their crimes as the Germans, for these crimes were not committed by communists alone, but with the collusion of millions upon millions of Russians – to the shame of that great nation.

It is easy to anticipate what Mr. Bąkowski will say in reply to all this. He will denounce the concept of collective guilt. There is only individual guilt, he will say. But this is not true, and I know it from personal experience. When my country’s armed forces commit an atrocity, I am ashamed of it. And I want the persons responsible to be punished. Why should a German or Russian feel otherwise? Is it reasonable to say that we feel nothing when our tribe or clan or close family member does something wrong? I am an individualist, but not a doctrinaire individualist who denies in the face of daily experience that man is tribal. I belong to others, and cannot survive or reproduce in myself. I also have a tribal identity, which I share with other Americans. Curiously, Mr. Bąkowski supposes that I will not admit that American communists are Americans. Why should I deny what is so important to admit? At the same time, however, I am well aware that an American communist is very different from a Russian communist, as a suicidal maniac differs from a homicidal maniac.

Is Russian culture great? Yes, and so is German culture. Do we love Beethoven? Of course! Does that mean we cannot refer to Hitler as German, or refer to Hitler’s army as the German Army? It would be ridiculous if we could not refer to the German Army as German when even the Germans called it thus. And so today, it would be ridiculous to call the Russian Army something else, when the Russians themselves call it the Russian Army, as it is made up of Russian fighting men and is based on Russian territory.

For Mr. Bąkowski the distinction between that which is Russian and that which is Soviet is clear. Well, with time and usage the two things have grown together. Therefore, in some areas the distinction is not clear at all, and here is where Mr. Bąkowski’s alleged precision mocks itself. The Soviet Union no longer exists. There is no Soviet state, government or leaders. The whole world now refers to the Russian Federation. In terms of language, we are obliged to respect changes of name, while maintaining that there are hidden communist structures. This makes our position intelligible to those unfamiliar with our views.

I am afraid, in this respect, we are no longer living in the time of Mackiewicz, when the Soviet Union openly acknowledged communism and disparaged Russian nationalism (except during the war). Proper names are nominal tags, and may be changed. Let us not confuse the thing with the name. Let us not fall into a semantic trap; for we will make ourselves ridiculous by refusing to accept common usage, and our views will then appear out-of-date. In terms of language, it doesn’t matter why the Soviet Union was eliminated. The USSR doesn’t exist. Something else has come in its place and it is our job to define what that new formation is, and how it works. We do not refer to Abraham Lincoln as a Whig politician after he became a Republican. We do not refer to the Bolsheviks as social democrats, even though that is what they originally were. We have to respect name changes, because language is about common usage. This doesn’t mean we forget the underlying reality. This is what we must hold onto!

Perhaps not intentionally, Mr. Bąkowski quotes me as saying that our enemies “all speak Russian….” This is an unfortunate use of a quotation mark, because I clearly identify communism and the communist bloc as the enemy. This bloc includes China, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. In the case of Poland, however, there won’t be an invasion from Cuba or China. You will be trampled by Russian boots. If you get a communist government, Russia will be its main support. All this being admitted, all the communist countries outside of Russia have but a fraction of Russia’s nuclear firepower. None of these countries can defeat the United States without Russia. The sophistication in strategy, is largely Russian. In nearly every area, the Russians are the leaders of this bloc, though the Chinese are regarded as equal partners.

So I hope, Mr. Bąkowski, that you are not determined to alienate those who published Golitsyn in Polish because they refer to Russia instead of the Soviet Union. To be a political grammarian of this type is to misread the game. The Russians no longer fly the Soviet flag over their capital. (They have retained it for their armed forces, however.) None of us knows what the ideological thinking of the current Russian leadership is. Have they abandoned Marxism-Leninism? Has there been a coup inside the coup? Well, it is Russia – as Churchill said, a riddle wrapped inside an enigma. Whatever is going on inside, we can see that they follow the old plan. We see them coordinating with communists around the world. At the same time, there are intelligent people who do not agree with my assertion that Russia is still run by communists. To discuss my analysis with them, I fall back upon common usage. This works best, in my experience, and would serve you as well. I think I am right in supposing that communism is yet in charge of the Kremlin, but I am far from doctrinaire.